Puppets....

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
or I will........

Mark
49 answers Last reply
More about puppets
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > or I will........
    >
    > Mark

    FOAD

    <Plonk>

    --
    MJB

    Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
    http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "MJB" <mrtinj@OLDSguy.com> wrote in message news:<c7aue204sa@news4.newsguy.com>...
    > "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > > or I will........
    > >
    > > Mark
    >
    > FOAD
    >
    > <Plonk>

    FOAD, no clue....

    <plonk>, wow....

    A sense of humor would serve you.

    I simply don't like childishly censored table-talk. On such a broad
    board as this, the drawing card, or the character, of this board rests
    in it's generalness. What will I see next? Who will I see next? The
    topic? TABLE-TALK...
    Go to Yahoo's "specific" boards. Wonderful specific topics if that's
    what your wargaming life consists of. Dip in and out. But here, it's
    more personal, more human (as with Yahoo, just not so constrained). I
    think some of the people here have personalities that could rely less
    on casualty charts, and more on die rolls... It's simply terrible not
    seeing the posts of those that have made this board actually
    entertaining and informative any more. Why did I come here in the
    first place? Oh, yeah. Wondering why my membership in HMGS did't grant
    me a newsletter. Found something better.

    I wouldn't 'plonk' you MJB. I'm a man....

    Mark

    PS Puppets?
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > or I will........

    Something nasty.

    <ducks for cover>

    --Ty
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > > or I will........
    >
    > Something nasty.
    >
    > <ducks for cover>
    >
    > --Ty

    Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, but apparently
    doesn't read much of anything else, Iraq "Democratization", U.S. war
    deaths in the 700s and headed up, $2.00 plus gas, Iraq prison scandal,
    electronic voting machine failures, censorship by Sinclair
    Broadcasting, another $25 Billion for three months of the
    occupation-(total so far pushing 200 Billion-$600 billion at some
    point is looking very likely), outsourcing jobs,only one Enron
    conviction-a woman, of course, just like poor little Martha, general
    revolt in the scientific community to the misuse of data by the
    administration, most of the world rejecting the US policies and
    leadership, nearly 50% drop in the US dollar versus the Euro in four
    years, non-existant Global Warming making the West a tinder box, under
    funded education programs, increasing numbers of people without health
    coverage, deficits continue to grow...

    No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    quite capable of creating lots of nasties.

    Over to you, Ty.

    BJ

    PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?

    Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
    inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
    need a new Mercedes? All of the above?

    Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
    sound effects for wargames?
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
    >

    And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?

    Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two lessers
    AGAIN this round.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com>...
    > >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    > >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
    > >
    >
    > And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
    >
    > Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two lessers
    > AGAIN this round.

    BJ: Awww...Sam, That's such a cop out! Come on now, admit that
    compromise is at the center of politics and that we will never have a
    saint for a President. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

    In any case, I'll take the potentially competent over the demonstrably
    incompetent.

    BJ
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > Something nasty.
    > >
    > > <ducks for cover>

    > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...

    > Over to you, Ty.

    Dear Mr. Jones,

    After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
    sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
    re-engage in an off-topic discussion.

    I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
    tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
    that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
    carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
    success in your other endeavors.

    I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,

    Ty
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
    > >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    > >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
    > >
    >
    > And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
    >
    > Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
    lessers
    > AGAIN this round.

    <Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>

    Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
    another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
    Side.

    <End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>

    :-)

    --Ty
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
    >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
    >Side.

    Oh I'm not. Its more of the grey side of the Force. I'm really extremely sad
    about the coming election (and its choice of two utterly worthless punks, if
    incresing news reports and open letters, etc. are to be believed).

    OTOH, Jones could not go totally unanswered less he try to claim victory by
    default.

    I'm going back to Rise of Nations now. Not as much as fun a human opponent,
    but far less "difficult" (in the human sense, not complexity).

    Anyone think the movie "Troy" will lead to any new members/products/interest in
    wargaming? I didn't even realize it was a regular movie until I saw the Time
    Mag. article (thought it was for cable before). At least they got the shape of
    the shields right, that is nice.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > > Something nasty.
    > > >
    > > > <ducks for cover>
    >
    > > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...
    >
    > > Over to you, Ty.
    >
    > Dear Mr. Jones,
    >
    > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
    > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
    > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
    >
    > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
    > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
    > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
    > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
    > success in your other endeavors.
    >
    > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
    >
    > Ty

    BJ: Given how things are going these days, I can totally understand
    your decision, and respect your good judgement in not re-entering the
    lists.

    Hope your daughter got that telescope.

    Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
    French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
    be pointed out is down to few postings a day.

    BJ
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <109n754r1rrm53e@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    >"SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
    >news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
    >> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    >> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
    >> >
    >>
    >> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
    >>
    >> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
    >lessers
    >> AGAIN this round.
    >
    ><Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
    >
    >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
    >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
    >Side.
    >
    ><End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
    >
    Give in to your Dark Side, Ty, you know you want to. You'll feel better
    if you do, you know. Just a little bit - nobody will blame you, and you
    will be able to sleep again without the Voices coming in the dead of
    night.
    --
    John Secker
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >BJ: Awww...Sam, That's such a cop out! Come on now, admit that
    >compromise is at the center of politics and that we will never have a
    >saint for a President. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

    I'm not looking for a saint. Just someone who is not an open embarrassment.

    And, I would say, someone who actually gives a damn about something beyond
    his/her own interests. I thought McCain was one such, but then even he got
    blinded by the big lights. I'm now beginning to think Goldwater was the last
    one, at least he stood for something, but was man enough to change his views
    with time.

    And, I wouldn't say no to someone who speaks plainly (Rumsfeld has his moments
    in this regard, Jesse Ventura as well --and he is not nearly as dumb as some
    people think either). Oh well, if wishes were fishes.

    Rise of Nations continues to kick me, the computer is just too efficient
    compared to me. And, I really wish you could disconnect nukes before the game
    even starts. At least the graphics are pretty.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
    >French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
    >be pointed out is down to few postings a day.

    Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
    percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.

    But it is so gloriously on topic.

    Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
    back into the hobby more directly.

    I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
    Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
    price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
    a chance again.

    Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
    definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.

    Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
    was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
    purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.

    Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
    about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
    borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
    a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
    questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
    sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
    extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."

    Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
    Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
    off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.

    Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
    officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
    guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
    what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
    unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
    1/32 Tamayas myself."

    Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
    why he was allowed to proceed scot free.

    First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
    self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
    from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
    and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
    Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.

    His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
    stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
    could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
    Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
    officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).

    But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
    stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
    publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
    people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
    place.

    As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
    country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
    belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
    care so little they don't even comment in their publication).

    For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
    noted for the group's officers.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...

    Hello Sam Vanga
    I think you have definitely missed the boat on this one. Allow me to
    elaborate below.

    > ......
    >
    > Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
    > was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
    > purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
    *NJH: You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
    article. You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
    unwarranted attack. You've taken his words and phrases completely out
    of context and misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
    meanings to his words, phrases, and the article. This is not what a
    rational, prudent, and reasonable person does when they take issue
    with the writings of another person. There are more civilized methods
    for taking exception to the writings of another.

    > Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better
    > informed
    > about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
    > borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
    > a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
    > questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
    > sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
    > extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
    >
    > Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
    > Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
    > off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
    *NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
    commentary" about a person you don't know.

    > Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
    > officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
    > guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
    > what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
    > unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
    > 1/32 Tamayas myself."
    > Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
    > why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
    *NJH: Many gamers in the Northwest have been moving North and South
    for decades (I started in 1971). We all have dozens of stories and
    anecdotes about our border crossings. I have my own extensive
    collection of good, bad, and ugly stories of border crossings.
    Contrary to what you may think the people watching our borders are
    human, therefore they are not perfect. For the most part they do a
    first rate job, but they do have their fifth rate moments.

    > First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
    > self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
    > from the event.
    *NJH: It's his money and his time, if he wishes to waste it listening
    to Franken that's his right as an American. If he had been listening
    to Rush, would you have made some petty remark about listening to drug
    addicts?

    > Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
    > and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
    > Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
    *NJH: I've crossed the border in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Michigan,
    and Maine. The colloquial phrase is "Border Guard" and there is
    nothing demaning or disrespectful in the use of such phrase. I don't
    get apoplectic when people write Justice Scalia instead of his correct
    title Associate Justice Scalia. And, I don't come unglued when people
    say Supreme Court or US Supreme Court when the official and correct
    title is Supreme Court of the United States.

    > His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
    > stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
    > could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
    > Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
    > officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
    *NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
    reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms? I suspect No. He
    may or may not have a reason, but the fact is that you didn't bother
    to ask.

    > But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal
    > ignorance, stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of
    > editing by the publishing body. The group could have at least had the
    > courtesy to thank the people belittled by the article, or told the puke to
    > stay on topic in the first place.
    *NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
    censorship is well documented. The Editor of the NHMGS Citadel has my
    full confidence and my full support. If you think you can do a better
    job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
    Citadel Editor. If the NHMGS BOD thinks you'll do a better job than
    the current Editor, they'll give you the job, in fact the current
    Editor may be only too happy to divest himself of the responsibility.
    If you don't like things, there is a mechanism for change.

    > As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
    > country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
    > belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
    > care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
    *NJH: This is rhetorical polemics. For almost 35 years I've had to
    cope with the boorish attitudes of people toward, and the humiliating
    and denigrating image of, my generation's military service. People who
    serve selfishly don't do it for thanks or recognition, we have our own
    private reasons for doing it.

    > For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
    > noted for the group's officers.
    *NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
    chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them. If you were
    genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for one, but
    you didn't. And, now, by publishing this philipic here you eliminate
    the possibility for having your missive appear in the Citadel
    (copyright infringements). Now we'll never know how they may have
    responded to your missive because you have robbed them of an
    opportunity to do so.

    Did you submit a rebuttal letter to the Editor? Did you send a
    rebuttal article to the Editor? Did you try to contact Mr Brooking
    regarding your concerns about the slights you perceived in his
    article? No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.
    You immediately went to one of our hobby's high profile public forums
    to electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
    reasons. What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
    which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
    themselves in our hobby. You can't possibly imagine how badly you
    misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
    NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.

    My apologies to one and all for my intemperant post. However, I cannot
    allow Mr Vanga's completely erroneous assessment of Mr Brooking's
    article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the NHMGS membership, and the
    gamers of the Pacific Northwest to go unanswered.
    I say again, you perceive that which does not exist. I strongly
    encourage you to reread the article and re-examine that which you
    disparage in the proper context of the entire article.
    I do not know how Mr Brooking or other members of NHMGS will respond,
    if at all. They are free to express their own opinions. IMHO - You
    have definitely missed the boat on this one.
    Cheers
    NJH
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Than associate with people who
    belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the
    people who
    care so little they don't even comment in their publication)."

    Sorry Sam, you're just as guilty, no, actually moreso, for doing the
    same thing you accuse Arther Brookings of doing. Arthur's article
    isn't the issue Sam, it's your response.

    You're using a broad brush to paint all the people in the group. Get a
    grip Sam, people are individuals and whether or not you realize it,
    they shouldn't be lumped together.

    By following your example I would conclude that the men and women who
    protect our borders are pompous, prejudicial folk like you, simply
    because you call them friends. But don't worry, I won't. I'll exercise
    my right and good sense to judge people on their own merits.

    Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
    can only speculate on what drove you away.


    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...
    > >Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
    > >French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
    > >be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
    >
    > Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
    > percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.
    >
    > But it is so gloriously on topic.
    >
    > Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
    > back into the hobby more directly.
    >
    > I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
    > Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
    > price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
    > a chance again.
    >
    > Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
    > definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.
    >
    > Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
    > was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
    > purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
    >
    > Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
    > about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
    > borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
    > a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
    > questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
    > sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
    > extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
    >
    > Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
    > Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
    > off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
    >
    > Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
    > officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
    > guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
    > what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
    > unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
    > 1/32 Tamayas myself."
    >
    > Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
    > why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
    >
    > First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
    > self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
    > from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
    > and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
    > Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
    >
    > His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
    > stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
    > could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
    > Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
    > officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
    >
    > But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
    > stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
    > publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
    > people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
    > place.
    >
    > As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
    > country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
    > belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
    > care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
    >
    > For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
    > noted for the group's officers.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...
    > >Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
    > >French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
    > >be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
    >
    > Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
    > percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.
    >
    > But it is so gloriously on topic.
    >
    > Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
    > back into the hobby more directly.
    >
    > I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
    > Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
    > price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
    > a chance again.
    >
    > Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
    > definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.
    >
    > Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
    > was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
    > purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
    >
    > Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
    > about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
    > borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
    > a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
    > questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
    > sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
    > extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
    >
    > Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
    > Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
    > off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
    >
    > Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
    > officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
    > guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
    > what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
    > unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
    > 1/32 Tamayas myself."
    >
    > Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
    > why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
    >
    > First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
    > self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
    > from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
    > and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
    > Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
    >
    > His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
    > stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
    > could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
    > Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
    > officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
    >
    > But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
    > stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
    > publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
    > people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
    > place.
    >
    > As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
    > country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
    > belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
    > care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
    >
    > For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
    > noted for the group's officers.

    I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
    circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
    based on such limited information.

    ~Chris Yoder
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ed Teixeira" <az_sunsets73@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:eb32c70a.0405081918.1fdc8eeb@posting.google.com...
    >>
    > Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
    > can only speculate on what drove you away.
    >

    Hi Ed!

    <waves cheerily>

    BBBob tells me you're back in the PacNW. Hope it's working-out.

    --
    MJB

    Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
    http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > > or I will........
    >
    > Something nasty.
    >
    > <ducks for cover>
    >
    > --Ty

    I can tell, you've been itching..... ;)

    Mark
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >
    > Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
    > French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
    > be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
    >
    > BJ

    Bob,

    Nope. Never. Can't be. In all things, one faces two. Left dances with
    right. Illness coos to cure. Hot and cold balm one-another. Water and
    desert embrace. In no way, shape, or form should this board be denuded
    of it's broad scope, it's sweeping intellect, and it's opposites. A
    table musters four sides and is in harmony, can't we at least come up
    with two?

    The French didn't have enough to do with white material while an
    Italian-Corsican was in charge so they fouled everything up be using
    it for uniforms without thinking of the future (the Italian-Corsican
    wasn't going to be around forever). An eye to history would've kept
    blue, blue... ;)

    Mark

    PS EBay's not bad.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones) wrote in message news:<73e9b810.0405061531.4f02c59d@posting.google.com>...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
    > > > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
    > > > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
    > > > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
    > > > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
    > > > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
    > > > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
    > > > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
    > > > or I will........
    > >
    > > Something nasty.
    > >
    > > <ducks for cover>
    > >
    > > --Ty
    >
    > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, but apparently
    > doesn't read much of anything else, Iraq "Democratization", U.S. war
    > deaths in the 700s and headed up, $2.00 plus gas, Iraq prison scandal,
    > electronic voting machine failures, censorship by Sinclair
    > Broadcasting, another $25 Billion for three months of the
    > occupation-(total so far pushing 200 Billion-$600 billion at some
    > point is looking very likely), outsourcing jobs,only one Enron
    > conviction-a woman, of course, just like poor little Martha, general
    > revolt in the scientific community to the misuse of data by the
    > administration, most of the world rejecting the US policies and
    > leadership, nearly 50% drop in the US dollar versus the Euro in four
    > years, non-existant Global Warming making the West a tinder box, under
    > funded education programs, increasing numbers of people without health
    > coverage, deficits continue to grow...
    >
    > No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    > quite capable of creating lots of nasties.

    Let's try this for a debate leader. When there is a heated discussion
    raging about Napoleon, I always wind up saying, "compared to who?". If
    given enough time for retrospection, it's amazing how even and
    thoughtful things get. Then last call....

    > Over to you, Ty.

    Where's he been?

    > BJ
    >
    > PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?

    The white uniforms ruined everthing....

    > Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
    > inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
    > need a new Mercedes? All of the above?

    You know, years ago, (if it's the same people), Russ's wife fished me
    out of a Historicon (95', 96'?) dealers area crowd and gave me $120.00
    of free ACW lead after pruchasing $800.00 worth the day before. I hope
    Russ got a new Mercedes. Be nice to ride in it...

    > Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
    > sound effects for wargames?

    Belches and farts weren't enough?

    Mark
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040507105531.07718.00000348@mb-m24.aol.com>...
    > >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
    > >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
    > >Side.
    >
    > Oh I'm not. Its more of the grey side of the Force. I'm really extremely sad
    > about the coming election (and its choice of two utterly worthless punks, if
    > incresing news reports and open letters, etc. are to be believed).

    History will judge. Bush or Kerry? Even if Bush didn't pay his bar tab
    I couldn't see picking Kerry. He's not human (Kerry that is).

    > OTOH, Jones could not go totally unanswered less he try to claim victory by
    > default.
    >
    > I'm going back to Rise of Nations now. Not as much as fun a human opponent,
    > but far less "difficult" (in the human sense, not complexity).
    >
    > Anyone think the movie "Troy" will lead to any new members/products/interest in
    > wargaming? I didn't even realize it was a regular movie until I saw the Time
    > Mag. article (thought it was for cable before). At least they got the shape of
    > the shields right, that is nice.

    Almost. According to those old WRG books I've got, they are rather
    more clothed than they should be and the sheilds should be alot bigger
    and cow colored. The hero style combat may be good though. May
    actually go see it since it looks like the closest thing yet to
    historical. Maybe Jennifer will be there.....

    Mark
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > > Something nasty.
    > > >
    > > > <ducks for cover>
    >
    > > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...
    >
    > > Over to you, Ty.
    >
    > Dear Mr. Jones,
    >
    > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
    > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
    > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
    >
    > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
    > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
    > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
    > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
    > success in your other endeavors.
    >
    > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
    >
    > Ty

    Ty,

    You know you're itching.... Been a while.

    Mark
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<maLJllCQmAnAFwHP@secker.demon.co.uk>...
    > In message <109n754r1rrm53e@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    > <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    > >"SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
    > >news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
    > >> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
    > >> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
    > >>
    > >> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
    > lessers
    > >> AGAIN this round.
    > >
    > ><Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
    > >
    > >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
    > >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
    > >Side.
    > >
    > ><End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
    > >
    > Give in to your Dark Side, Ty, you know you want to. You'll feel better
    > if you do, you know. Just a little bit - nobody will blame you, and you
    > will be able to sleep again without the Voices coming in the dead of
    > night.

    Vioces. Have you guys been conferencing late at night? That's not right.....

    Mark
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >According to those old WRG books I've got, they are rather
    >more clothed than they should be

    Yeah, there may be some of that for the rank and file types anyway. As for the
    heroes, Homer did talk about a fair amount of armor.

    >sheilds should be alot bigger
    >and cow colored.

    I must say the previews make them look pretty big. Although, I agree with you,
    more leather, les metal.

    >May
    >actually go see it since it looks like the closest thing yet to
    >historical.

    I sincerely hope they do justice to the story. I am especially interested in
    how they do Hector. He and Odysseus <sp?> were always my favorites.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...

    > > Dear Mr. Jones,
    > >
    > > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am
    very
    > > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
    > > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
    > >
    > > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it
    constitutes a
    > > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the
    dawn,
    > > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try
    to
    > > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree
    of
    > > success in your other endeavors.
    > >
    > > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
    > >
    > > Ty
    >
    > Ty,
    >
    > You know you're itching.... Been a while.

    Dear Mr. Parks,

    You overestimate me. Besides, I get paid to argue (I'm a lawyer). If done in
    small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice. But if
    done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
    clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
    flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.

    Now while I believe that arguing about an issue can be beneficial because it
    can help clarify my thinking and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of
    each side, I find that there are severe limitations. In a usenet forum,
    cowardly opponents can simply ignore your counterpoints, refuse to answer
    legitimate questions, attempt to shift the debate to irrelevant issues, etc.
    Other folks can jump into the middle of a debate and distract the issues.
    The lack of nonverbal cues -- and sloppy typing -- can unintentionally
    offend the other side or simply obfuscate the piont you're trying to make.
    The sloppy way that folks (including me) throw around defined terms --
    without defining them in the current discussion -- add to the confusion.
    (Consider a simple example -- a debate on whether a certain military action
    was "moral". How can we discuss that meaningfully without agreeing on what
    the definition of "morality" is?) There's also the problem that a great many
    political debates (which seem to predominate our OT flamewars) turn on
    factual matters which are in dispute. This forum is simply not capable of
    resolving the factual issues.

    So, such discussions quickly become bogged down in an intellectual version
    of the Western Front in WWI.

    And even if you have a reasonable disputant on the other side of the issue,
    the fact remains that these kind of off-topic flamewars pretty quickly
    exhaust their benefit stream. Most folks are simply not willing to change
    their cherished beliefs no matter how much contra evidence is produced. This
    is a fact that I am only recently becoming aware of -- my gaming buddies
    have poked fun at me for decades because of my absurd and naive belief that
    anyone will see the light if things are simply explained clearly enough to
    them.

    So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq, the
    presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
    invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see any
    likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.

    But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT flamewar,
    I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.

    Your humble and obsequious servant,

    Ty
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
    >article.

    You suggest I reread the article and that I missed the point of it. Ok, I
    reread it.

    The overall nature of the article was to summarize the author's trip to a
    Canadian event "Breakthrough 2003" if I got the title right. Ok, fair enough,
    it is always interesting to see how things are done elsewhere.

    However, the author takes time to make negative comments in both the beginning
    and end of the article about our Customs personnel.

    Excellent as far as timing in the course of his trip. Utterly irrelevant to
    the "true nature and purpose of his article," given the rest of the text.

    Please note, I make exactly zero comment about those elements which focused on
    the event. I limited my umbrage to his hostility toward our nation's
    protectors.

    They are not perfect, nor do I claim them to be. However, his comments added
    no value to the actual subject of his article, a Canadian wargaming event.

    >You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
    >unwarranted attack.

    No I don't know him. However, he chose to publish his views in a forum
    available to the public. In it, he chose to launch an unwarranted attack (in
    my view) on people who happen to be friends of mine.

    >You've taken his words and phrases completely out
    >of context

    Out context insofar as I did not quote the entire article. However, you could
    very easily remove the sections I quoted with zero effect on the rest of the
    article (or the elements I quote), certainly at least, in substance.

    >misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
    >meanings to his words, phrases, and the article.

    I quoted his words exactly (unless I made a typo somewhere). Without quoting
    the entire article I will agree with you that they are not the main point of
    the article.

    Thus, they could easily be removed without detriment to the rest of the
    material. However, they remained in the article, and therefore are subject to
    comment (even comment that you dislike).

    >There are more civilized methods
    >for taking exception to the writings of another.

    I quoted the elements I found offensive. I commented on them, and explained
    how, and why I felt as I did within that limit. For someone who claims the
    right of the author to express himself freely, I find it interesting that you
    would deny me the same.

    >*NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
    >commentary" about a person you don't know.

    My commentary is limited solely to the contents of the article. Other than a
    snide comment about his listening to Al Franken, I did not comment about
    anything else about the author. I did however, have the discourtesy to allow
    his words to speak for themselves.

    >I have my own extensive
    >collection of good, bad, and ugly stories of border crossings.

    As do I from both our southern and northern borders. Moreover, I also have
    friends in the service so have additional observations from the other side of
    the process as well.

    >Contrary to what you may think the people watching our borders are
    >human, therefore they are not perfect.

    I never claimed otherwise.

    However, I have no problem with them being of whatever ancestral background
    they happen to be. The length of their hair does not affect me. Nor do I have
    a problem with them stepping outside a booth to do their jobs. Nor does the
    fact that they are armed bother me (see earlier reference to Kenneth G. Ward
    Border Station).

    >For the most part they do a
    >first rate job, but they do have their fifth rate moments.

    I fully agree. And, had the author related a specific experience, fair enough.
    However, he did not.

    He made comments about their heritage, their grooming, their demeanor, and
    their equipment. None of which even remotely applied to the subject of his
    trip, a gaming event in Canada. Moreover, none of the factors that got his
    attention had any bearing (related by him) to his actual crossings.

    >*NJH: It's his money and his time, if he wishes to waste it listening
    >to Franken that's his right as an American.

    Just so. And, this is the one place wherein I feel I made snotty comment of my
    own.

    >If he had been listening
    >to Rush, would you have made some petty remark about listening to drug
    >addicts?

    Probably.

    >The colloquial phrase is "Border Guard" and there is
    >nothing demaning or disrespectful in the use of such phrase.

    I never called demeaning or disrespectful. I called it ignorant. There is a
    difference.

    I refer to the dictionary:

    "Main Entry: ig·no·rant
    Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
    Function: adjective
    Date: 14th century
    1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking
    knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern
    mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
    <ignorant errors>
    2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED "

    >*NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
    >reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms?

    Of course he might. However, he did not express any such concern or fear.

    Instead he referred to the prominent display of the weapons. To me that is a
    comment about the person wearing the gun since the gun does not display itself.

    >but the fact is that you didn't bother
    >to ask.

    Any more, apparently, than did he before making his comments.

    >*NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
    >censorship is well documented.

    And yet, you blast me when I exercise mine. Is it at all possible that you
    only cherish this freedom when it is in agreement with your own perspectives?

    Please note, I condemn the views themselves.

    I do condemn the editor for not editing the comments out as they add no value
    to the article's main subject. But mostly, no word of thanks to the people who
    protect our borders, just a general disclaimer in front about the views being
    solely those of the authors.

    Ironically, with this one exception, I found the rest of the material quite
    good. The other articles stayed on topic. Were well written and entertaining.
    Even the actual jist of Mr. Brooking's article was fine.

    >If you think you can do a better
    >job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
    >Citadel Editor.

    Thank you no. As the leading officer of the group you have quite disabused me
    of whatever thought I may have had left in this regard. This despite the very
    decent and honorable efforts made by another member of your group at large
    (that gentleman is a true credit to the hobby and his fellow members and is the
    type of gamer I miss meeting).

    >*NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
    >chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them.

    Let's see, I noted I also mailed the group officers with my opinion. You
    called this baloney. And, yet I have mail to your address as well as three
    others. In what way did I not do as I claimed?

    >If you were
    >genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for one, but
    >you didn't.

    Let's see, your author publicly expresses his opinion (without review/response)
    and it is a First Amendment freedom at stake. I publicly publish my opinion
    (without review/response) and I have no genuine interest in a reply, etc.,
    etc., etc.

    Well sir, I take this to be the response. Fair enough. I jumped to a
    conclusion, which you have indeed borne out, so I saved some time.

    >Now we'll never know how they may have
    >responded to your missive because you have robbed them of an
    >opportunity to do so.

    Not a bit of it. If they are still concerned in the next edition, they have
    the ability to respond. Granted, I made my concerns generally known, but I
    have always been in favor of transparency where it is possible.


    >No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.

    Let's see, I quoted the elements of an article that bothered me. I commented
    on the same and noted why I hold my views. I can tell it bothers you I did so
    in a public forum outside the pages of the newsletter itself. Ok.

    However, there is exactly nothing irrational, imprudent, or unreasonable about
    my method. The best you could argue is inefficient as it does not limit itself
    to the pages of your publication. I would argue in turn that it reaches a
    larger forum and that not a bad thing.

    >electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
    >reasons.

    First, I did not "electronically lynch" anyone. I condemned certain lines of
    text, which I believe I correctly assessed to be snotty, arrogant, and ignorant
    within the context they appeared. Outside of these lines, and one snotty (of
    my own) comment about his listening habits, I have no opinion of the author as
    I do not know him beyond his writing.

    >What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
    >which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
    >themselves in our hobby.

    Really? The man's words speak for themselves. As does their defense, and its
    tone, by you.

    >You can't possibly imagine how badly you
    >misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
    >NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.

    I sincerely hope you are correct. As I noted in my original opinion, I spoke
    in defense of the Customs officers I perceived to be denigrated by the article
    due to my friendship with many of them.

    I feel that I limited my opinions to those lines which were applicable and no
    others (with one self indulgent swipe at the Franken tapes). And, I still
    feel, even more so after this reply to you, that I was correct. That you
    disagree is fine with me.

    However, I still note that your only nod to my concern is a passing reference
    to Customs and Border Protection officers being merely human and having both
    good and bad days. I guess that is better than second guessing their ancestry
    and gender, thier chosen hair styles, their professional conduct and the
    equipment issued to them for their protection and that of others.

    >IMHO - You
    >have definitely missed the boat on this one.

    And, IMHO I did not, even less so now.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >You're using a broad brush to paint all the people in the group.

    I concede that this appears to be so. That much is my fault. I should have
    added text to emphasize my focus on the author, and some extent the editor. I
    think my response elsewhere goes into greater detail in this regard.

    However, the type of mentality expressed by the author and the groups'
    President in his reply to me, are the kind of thing to which I was referring.
    It is their attitudes that I do not miss and am glad to avoid.

    At least one of ther gentleman of the larger group replied privately to me.
    His reply was gentlemanly, actually addressed my concerns and was a credit to
    the community at large. I do indeed hope that he, not these others, is a
    representative of the whole.

    >Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
    >can only speculate on what drove you away.

    What drove me away was self-rightous self-absorbed idiots. Some of them were
    the traditional rules lawyers who could quote the text of an entire volume
    (understand it or not). But too many others were people who just knew what was
    best for everyone else generally.

    When I made my first post I had just read the offending article. I felt that
    my friends were under attack without cause. Maybe I used words that some, like
    you, found difficult or whatever. I can only say, the people who protect our
    borders deserve better (friends of mine or not).
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
    >circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
    >based on such limited information.

    If you mean I used a broad brush to paint many people, I apologize. That was
    not my intent, but I was angry on behalf of my friends and was not as exact in
    my wording as I might have been.

    However, if you are referring to my views of the text, and its author, I
    quoted, I stand by that.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040509063734.08318.00000760@mb-m11.aol.com>...
    > >I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
    > >circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
    > >based on such limited information.
    >
    > If you mean I used a broad brush to paint many people, I apologize. That was
    > not my intent, but I was angry on behalf of my friends and was not as exact in
    > my wording as I might have been.
    >
    > However, if you are referring to my views of the text, and its author, I
    > quoted, I stand by that.

    Mr. Vanga
    I think it is interesting that one can hold sweeping and definitive
    views of someone you have never met. It is the true failing of the
    internet, that one can post such scurrilous, unfounded accusations for
    the entire world to see, while having no knowledge of the subjects.
    I'm sorry we aren't replying to you off the usenet, as you prefer, but
    that is something that occurs between gentlemen.

    Where to begin . . .

    First, Arthur Brooking is anything but the person you suggest. I have
    known Arthur for many years. He is smart, responsible, kind and
    forthright. There is nothing smug or snotty about him. His border
    crossing comments were strictly tongue-in cheek. If you don't
    understand his effort at humor, that seems to be your problem. If you
    don't like Arthur's politics, get over it. Arthur is my friend and
    somebody I always enjoy seeing; I am sorry you won't get to know him.

    Second, lets deal in some facts here. The border crossing is an
    issue. I have gone to game conventions in Canada six times since 9/11
    and the attitudes of U.S. officials are more intrusive and their
    attitudes often seem self-important. For years we have held
    conventions attended by hobbyists on both sides of the border. We've
    supported one another's conventions because it is important to the
    hobby, and frankly, we have lots of friends in Canada we only see at
    convention time. Canadians have regularly attended our annual
    gathering, and supported it with their presence and their games.
    Before 9/11 we could count on 8-12 games from Canadian game hosts.
    Due to the intrusive border inspections, the hassles involved in
    getting game materials into the states, we will have 2 Canadian games
    this year. We all realize that the border folk have an important job
    to do, but don't suggest for a minute that it doesn't impact us. And
    don't impugn our characters when we bitch about it because it is
    bitching between friends . . . which you have decided not to be.

    Finally, if our newsletter is what keeps you out of the hobby . . .
    then my guess is you never really wanted in. Miniature wargaming is
    about three simple things--love of history, an interest in modeling,
    and sustaining friendships in the hobby. It isn't about politics, and
    it isn't about characterizing individuals or organizations one is
    completely ignorant about. Historical miniature gaming is not a large
    hobby, and NHMGS is not a large organization. You would have found us
    welcoming and supportive if you had simply taken the time to get to
    know us. You might have enjoyed talking history, or new miniatures,
    rules sets, sharing a Krispy Kreme with Arthur, bitching about the
    club officers or complaining about the Mariners. Or even played a
    great game with Paul Hannah, or Bruce Meyer.

    Of course, you're going to miss out on that now that you are
    radioactive.

    Kevin Smyth
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >I'm sorry we aren't replying to you off the usenet, as you prefer, but
    >that is something that occurs between gentlemen.

    I don't have any particular preference. This should be obvious given the means
    by which I made my views known in the first place. However, I noted that the
    only polite response was made privately.

    Yours is like the other replies in this forum. It is to harshly attack me.
    Fine, friends should stand together. Note why I made my own comments in the
    first place.

    You suggest the tone was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Fair enough, that is
    possible.

    I am of course then confused as to why he would not include even one sentence
    in thanks for the hard work of the officers, as is customary in a written
    format, since body language and verbal tone is lacking in writing.
    Nonetheless, despite no indication of his tongue-in-cheek intent, you are
    correct, that may have been all he meant.

    Did I feel, from his own words that such was his intent, I would have had a
    chuckle and looked for the nearest meeting. However, given his word choice,
    and given the ongoing defense which makes nearly zero effort to address my
    concerns, I feel that my first impression was correct.


    >If you
    >don't like Arthur's politics, get over it.

    Just as with most of the other responses, you choose to miss my main point and
    focus on the one place wherein I indulged myself. Again, I have a problem with
    his portrayal of my friends. The fact that he listens to Al Franken is not my
    main point, nor do I dwell on it, unlike the article's defenders.

    >The border crossing is an
    >issue.

    Yes, it is. Since I lost family in the New York attack I still find it
    frightenly easy for everyone to cross. I always find it comforting that some
    men and women are willing to try to do that thankless task.

    And, I believe that they deserve some appreciation rather having their heritage
    derided, their hair made fun of, themselves portrayed as swaggers, and the
    implication that they are amateurs about guns by "prominently displaying" them.

    > attitudes of U.S. officials are more intrusive

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps they take their jobs seriously? That maybe
    they are actively looking for any number of violations ranging from the obvious
    guy with a gun to the not so obvious one with money? That there are more
    criminals entering the U.S. than leaving?

    Again, my perception of the tone of your comments is that you simply are
    annoyed. Well, unless you happen to know the officer personally, he has to
    assume that you (and I and everyone else) are some kind of threat until
    satisfied otherwise.


    >We all realize that the border folk have an important job
    >to do

    And here again, is as close as you get actually addressing my concern. As with
    djcoaltrain, it is far from appreciation for a hard job, mostly well done.
    But, it is better than comments about their ethnicity, their hair, their job
    equipment, etc.

    > And
    >don't impugn our characters when we bitch about it because it is
    >bitching between friends

    Just allow you and your friends to impugn the characters of my friends based on
    their jobs? No. I will not be any less supportive of my friends than you are
    of yours.

    >which you have decided not to be.

    That is correct, as I clearly stated, along with the reason why. I reiterate
    all of that in this reply to you as well.

    Again, I find it interesting that all of the replies (except one in private)
    have the same tone. Righteous indignation, self-superiority, and general
    hostility to disagreement. Fair enough, I expressed some of the same
    sentiments myself, in defense of my friends.

    However, I note yet again, how damning the faint praise you offer to our
    service people actually is. And, since that is my main concern, how much you
    choose to ignore or miss it.

    >Finally, if our newsletter is what keeps you out of the hobby . . .
    >then my guess is you never really wanted in.

    Nope. The newsletter nearly had me back into the hobby. For the most part it
    brought back fond memories of fun times. The Pig Wars battle report was
    especially entertaining and I rather liked the cartoons.

    However, the attitude I perceived in the article I noted, and moreover, the
    defense of it here, is what keeps me out.

    Again I note, most of the replies have focused on the one snide comment I made
    about listening to Franken tapes rather than address my concerns (still valid
    after I again reread the article with the 'tongue-in-cheek idea in mind). The
    one private reply is still the only one which actually addressed my point.


    >Miniature wargaming is
    >about three simple things--love of history, an interest in modeling,
    >and sustaining friendships in the hobby.

    That is largely correct. And, it is the sustaining the friendships element
    that I choose to exercise now that I have a broader exposure to the mentality
    of the local community.

    The inability, or unwillingness, to do more than offer a few vaguely nice
    comments (carefully surrounded by equally vaguely negative comments) about the
    work of my friends is not new. If only half the stories they tell are true, I
    don't know why any of them keep their jobs, until I recognize the love and
    belief that most of them genuinely hold for it, despite the harassments.

    Based on the comments in this forum, it seems that the author has many who
    agree with his views. Fair enough, that is their right and I am all for it. I
    will choose not to expose myself to those views, and the attendant blinders
    which seem to accompany them.

    >You might have enjoyed talking history, or new miniatures,

    That is indeed what I miss most. And, perhaps when I need to move again,
    perhaps I will reconsider.

    >Of course, you're going to miss out on that now that you are
    >radioactive.

    If I am "radioactive" with people who miss or ignore a valid concern, based on
    the actual text in question, I can live with this condition. My friends in
    uniform may not share this hobby, but we do share others. I continue to regret
    the sentiments I see echoed here, and the other replies here, and the lack of
    support for my friends in a job which benefits all of us.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040509062438.08318.00000758@mb-m11.aol.com>...
    > >You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
    > >article.
    >
    > You suggest I reread the article and that I missed the point of it. Ok, I
    > reread it.
    >
    > The overall nature of the article was to summarize the author's trip to a
    > Canadian event "Breakthrough 2003" if I got the title right. Ok, fair enough,
    > it is always interesting to see how things are done elsewhere.
    >
    > However, the author takes time to make negative comments in both the beginning
    > and end of the article about our Customs personnel.
    *NJH: As I explained in my previous note, they were entirely
    tongue-in-cheek. They are not disrespective nor denigrating when
    viewed in context. I read for several hours everyday, many times I
    read little asides such as Mr Brooking's in humorous articles about
    traveling. They are an acceptable literary device, you deliberately
    took offense where none was intended, several people have told you so
    and yet you continue to be offended. I'm saying once again, your
    outrage is seriously misplaced.

    > I limited my umbrage to his hostility toward our nation's protectors.
    *NJH: He has no hostility toward them. Why are you so determined to
    ignore this simple fact?

    > >You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
    > >unwarranted attack.
    > No I don't know him. However, he chose to publish his views in a forum
    > available to the public. In it, he chose to launch an unwarranted attack (in
    > my view) on people who happen to be friends of mine.
    *NJH: Then you should have given him the courtesy of a reply in the
    "public forum" he originally used.

    > >You've taken his words and phrases completely out
    > >of context
    > Out context insofar as I did not quote the entire article. However, you could
    > very easily remove the sections I quoted with zero effect on the rest of the
    > article (or the elements I quote), certainly at least, in substance.
    *NJH: If you remove those quotes form their context, you lose their
    tongue in cheek nature. That's why it's always dangerous to remove
    anything from context, unless it's an obvious sound byte and meant to
    be used alone.

    > >misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
    > >meanings to his words, phrases, and the article.
    > I quoted his words exactly (unless I made a typo somewhere). Without quoting
    > the entire article I will agree with you that they are not the main point of
    > the article.
    > Thus, they could easily be removed without detriment to the rest of the
    > material. However, they remained in the article, and therefore are subject to
    > comment (even comment that you dislike).
    *NJH: Comment is one thing, but what you launched an all out attack on
    Mr Brooking (dang, you called the guy a puke), and all else associated
    with the newsletter, that was decidedly unfair.

    > >There are more civilized methods
    > >for taking exception to the writings of another.
    > I quoted the elements I found offensive. I commented on them, and explained
    > how, and why I felt as I did within that limit. For someone who claims the
    > right of the author to express himself freely, I find it interesting that you
    > would deny me the same.
    *NJH: It would have been more civilized to take exception in the
    original publication. Did you not think you would have an opportunity
    to respond in The Citadel? If that is what you thought, then you have
    prejudged without a basis in fact. Exactly the kind of treatment you
    lament for your friends.

    > >*NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
    > >commentary" about a person you don't know.
    > My commentary is limited solely to the contents of the article. Other than a
    > snide comment about his listening to Al Franken, I did not comment about
    > anything else about the author. I did however, have the discourtesy to allow
    > his words to speak for themselves.
    *NJH: IMHO - You have unfairly accused him of denigrating and
    disrespecting a group of public servants. Again, I say that was not
    the case.

    > He made comments about their heritage, their grooming, their demeanor, and
    > their equipment. None of which even remotely applied to the subject of his
    > trip, a gaming event in Canada. Moreover, none of the factors that got his
    > attention had any bearing (related by him) to his actual crossings.
    *NJH: This is hyperbole and rhetorical polemics. You're trying very
    hard to elevate his relatively innocuous comments to some monumentally
    egregious moral transgression to validate your concerns, comments, and
    actions.

    > >*NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
    > >reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms?
    > Of course he might. However, he did not express any such concern or fear.
    *NJH: Not in the article, but why didn't you contact him directly and
    ask him?

    > Instead he referred to the prominent display of the weapons. To me that is a
    > comment about the person wearing the gun since the gun does not display
    > itself.
    *NJH: This is a non sequitur, I see no such connection and I'm a
    seriously firm defender of the Second Amendment (I like former
    President Heston).

    > >*NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
    > >censorship is well documented.
    > And yet, you blast me when I exercise mine. Is it at all possible that you
    > only cherish this freedom when it is in agreement with your own perspectives?
    *NJH: I haven't censored any of your writings or indicated you should
    be silenced. I have taken issue with what you wrote and where you
    wrote it and the timing of your writings, and IMHO - your misguided
    outrage. When people post or publish incorrect information about
    NHMGS, or it's my job to say it's incorrect. When people fail to give
    NHMGS a chance to process complaints, it's my job to say you didn't
    give us a chance.

    > Please note, I condemn the views themselves.
    *NJH: Please note I only condemn the incorrect assessment, the choice
    of venue for venting, and the fact you did not give the NHMGS
    officials time to address your concerns before you went "public."

    > I do condemn the editor for not editing the comments out as they add no value
    > to the article's main subject. But mostly, no word of thanks to the people
    > who protect our borders, just a general disclaimer in front about the views
    > being solely those of the authors.
    *NJH: All articles printed are the views of the author. It's a
    newsletter for a private organization and as such we do not have an
    elaborate masthead. It's not the MWAN, the Courier, or the Times. The
    Citadel is a newsletter for a private organization, cut us some slack
    here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.

    > >If you think you can do a better
    > >job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
    > >Citadel Editor.
    > Thank you no. As the leading officer of the group you have quite disabused me
    > of whatever thought I may have had left in this regard.
    *NJH: Right. As the leading officer it's part of my duty to defend the
    organization and it's members from specious allegations and baseless
    assertions. If you were part of the organization I would defend you
    just as vehemently. I ride for the brand.

    > This despite the very
    > decent and honorable efforts made by another member of your group at large
    > (that gentleman is a true credit to the hobby and his fellow members and is
    > the type of gamer I miss meeting).
    *NJH: You attacked our organization, NHMGS officers, our newsletter,
    our editor, and a decent member of our organization in a public forum.
    You left me with no alternative, but to respond in kind in a public
    forum. I did, and I truly apologize to the RGMH community for
    violating the ceasefire.

    > >*NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
    > >chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them.
    > Let's see, I noted I also mailed the group officers with my opinion. You
    > called this baloney. And, yet I have mail to your address as well as three
    > others. In what way did I not do as I claimed?
    *NJH: You sent the emails to the officers after you posted here. You
    gave us absolutely no time to respond to your concerns. For you to
    hint in any way that you gave us time or opportunity to respond to
    your concerns is false. The time/date stamp for your initial post here
    on RGMH is "Date: 2004-05-08 07:57:46 PST." The time/date for the
    email to the Officers of NHMGS is "Date: 5/8/04 8:09:29 AM Pacific
    Daylight Time." You placed your post here on RGMH, then, about twelve
    minutes later, you sent the email to the NHMGS officers. There was no
    time for the officer's to do anything before you went public. Explain
    to everyone here, how you could rationally and reasonably expect the
    officer's of NHMGS to respond to your concerns (emails) before you
    posted here, especially when you had already posted on RGMH before you
    sent the emails to the officers???
    Basically the timeline is as follows:
    1. Post on RGMH with an indication that you did not expect the
    officer's to do anything.
    2. Send emails to officers
    3. Claim you gave the officer's ample opportunity.
    That dog won't hunt.

    > >If you were genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for
    > > one, but you didn't.
    > Let's see, your author publicly expresses his opinion (without
    > review/response) and it is a First Amendment freedom at stake. I publicly
    > publish my opinion (without review/response) and I have no genuine interest
    > in a reply, etc., etc., etc.
    *NJH: You could have published a response in the Citadel, you didn't.
    I'll give you another chance to put your concerns before the gamers of
    NHMGS, here is the yahoo.group for the NHMGS organization:

    "http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/NHMGS/"

    Join the group, any gamer can, and publish your original post from
    this thread. The real test of an idea is in an open market place of
    ideas. There are over a hundred members of that group, see if any of
    them agree with your assessment of the situation. Give your concerns a
    chance to be validated, let's see if they have legs. If there is
    traction for your observations, I'm sure you'll get sympathetic
    responses.

    > Well sir, I take this to be the response. Fair enough. I jumped to a
    > conclusion, which you have indeed borne out, so I saved some time.
    *NJH: Yes indeed, you did jump to a conclusion, IMHO - an erroneous
    conclusion. I'm saying, perhaps indelicately, and without the niceties
    of tact, that you're incorrect. You don't like the way I have
    responded, well welcome to the club, I didn't like the manner in which
    you made your concerns public before they could be handled privately.
    Therefore, you got a rather heated reply.

    > >Now we'll never know how they may have responded to your missive because you
    > have robbed them of an opportunity to do so.
    > Not a bit of it. If they are still concerned in the next edition, they have
    > the ability to respond. Granted, I made my concerns generally known, but I
    > have always been in favor of transparency where it is possible.
    *NJH: There is a difference between transparency and truculence. You
    could just as easily have had your concerns published in the next
    issue of the Citadel (you still could). You didn't wait for the system
    to process your complaint. The system can't work if it isn't given a
    chance to function. You should have given us a chance before venting
    here.

    > >No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.
    >
    > Let's see, I quoted the elements of an article that bothered me. I commented
    > on the same and noted why I hold my views. I can tell it bothers you I did so
    > in a public forum outside the pages of the newsletter itself. Ok.
    >
    > However, there is exactly nothing irrational, imprudent, or unreasonable about
    > my method. The best you could argue is inefficient as it does not limit
    > itself to the pages of your publication. I would argue in turn that it
    > reaches a larger forum and that not a bad thing.
    *NJH: You have deliberately intimated in a most vehement manner and
    high profile public forum that several people and aspects of the
    gaming community of the Pacific Northwest are scurrilous in word and
    deed. You do so before they had a chance to evaluate your concerns and
    respond directly to you about your concerns. That's not rational,
    prudent, or reasonable.

    > >electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
    > >reasons.
    > First, I did not "electronically lynch" anyone. I condemned certain lines of
    > text, which I believe I correctly assessed to be snotty, arrogant, and
    > ignorant within the context they appeared. Outside of these lines, and one
    > snotty (of my own) comment about his listening habits, I have no opinion of
    > the author as I do not know him beyond his writing.
    *NJH: Several people who know Mr Brooking and are acquainted with the
    article have now told you that you have misconstrued and misunderstood
    the article and the quotes you have pulled from context. I would hope
    you listen to them.

    > >What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
    > >which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
    > >themselves in our hobby.
    > Really? The man's words speak for themselves. As does their defense, and its
    > tone, by you.
    *NJH: The article speaks for itself, but you fail to appreciate the
    full message or the intent of that message. Consider this: You have
    seen my posts here. Have you ever seen me repsond with such forceful
    language before? Not to Bob, John, Tim, Ty, or you, not even when we
    engaged in highly charged discussions. I am responding here with an
    uncharacteristic forcefulness, because I know Mr Brooking and all the
    other people, they are exactly the kind of people we all hope to game
    with, and exactly the kind of people with whom we all hope to enjoy
    the hobby. So far, everyone is telling you the sky is blue, consider
    the possiblity they may be correct.

    (BTW - Apologies to Ty for not giving him top billing, but I listed
    the names alphabetically.) ;-)

    > >You can't possibly imagine how badly you
    > >misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
    > >NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.
    > I sincerely hope you are correct. As I noted in my original opinion, I spoke
    > in defense of the Customs officers I perceived to be denigrated by the article
    > due to my friendship with many of them.
    *NJH: I say again, no such intent existed.

    > I feel that I limited my opinions to those lines which were applicable and no
    > others (with one self indulgent swipe at the Franken tapes).
    *NJH: Welllll, personally I can excuse that one as I'm not much of a
    fan of talking heads and illeducated pundits, regardless of party
    affiliation. I care not for Al anymore than I care for Rush. They both
    irritate me and I'd rather spend money on minis than their tapes.

    > And, I still feel, even more so after this reply to you, that I was correct.
    > That you disagree is fine with me.
    *NJH: OK. I can tolerate a personal opinion, but I don't have to agree
    with it. I still take exception to your methodology.

    > However, I still note that your only nod to my concern is a passing reference
    > to Customs and Border Protection officers being merely human and having both
    > good and bad days. I guess that is better than second guessing their ancestry
    > and gender, thier chosen hair styles, their professional conduct and the
    > equipment issued to them for their protection and that of others.
    *NJH: I chose not to comment directly on the personal experiences of
    Mr Brooking's or you. I have my own experiences to comfort me. I have
    several relatives and friends involved with law enforcement, but I
    don't get upset when someone uses the phase Cop, instead of "Officer
    of the Law" or "Constable." I don't go sideways when people malign
    Attorneys, and my wife is an Attorney as are several of our friends. I
    still do not see the "second guessing" you see in the article or the
    phrases, but that's just me. I'm a sports official and I'm used to all
    sorts of abuse and insults, they're part of the game and contextual, I
    live it all on the pitch.

    > >IMHO - You have definitely missed the boat on this one.
    > And, IMHO I did not, even less so now.
    *NJH: I would very much like you to consider my first post as having
    been written in the heat and passion of the moment. In such rare
    instances, when I do not carefully measure my prose and speech, I am
    not nearly as tactful or diplomatic as I should like to be. In as much
    as you view Mr Brooking's words to be disrespectful of your friends
    profession, I also perceived your broad brush denunciations of NHMGS
    (and its members) and your methodology to be extremely disrespectful.
    Ideally, I wish you had sent the emails to the NHMGS officers and
    given us a deadline for a response before venting on RGMH.

    Again, my apologies to the RGMH community for my intemperate excesses.
    Cheers
    NJH
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >I'm saying once again, your
    >outrage is seriously misplaced.

    And I am saying once again, after three readings, that I do not perceive them
    to be "tongue-in-cheek." Thus, again, I feel that my original impression is
    correct.

    >*NJH: He has no hostility toward them. Why are you so determined to
    >ignore this simple fact?

    Because I read the words he used. I also noted the absence of any words to
    mitigate/explain those he did use (either by the author or the editor).

    >*NJH: Then you should have given him the courtesy of a reply in the
    >"public forum" he originally used.

    Did I have any certainty of that forum being open to me, perhaps. At best,
    that would only be a hope.

    >That's why it's always dangerous to remove
    >anything from context, unless it's an obvious sound byte and meant to
    >be used alone.

    That is exactly what those comments appear to be (sound bytes). I do not see
    any serious attempt to indicate otherwise.

    >*NJH: Comment is one thing, but what you launched an all out attack on
    >Mr Brooking (dang, you called the guy a puke),

    Let's see, he refers to my friends' ethnicity and gender (inaccurately as it
    happens, the Customs Service is one of the most open to women and minorities in
    the country). He chooses words like swagger to describe their demeanor. He
    derides their "prominently displayed" guns (implying that they are doing that
    deliberately since guns are mere objects and can't display themselves in any
    manner).

    Yeah, I was pissed when I made first comments. I saw friends of mine (if not
    literal friends, fellows in law enforcement) slammed for no apparent reason
    given the point of the article. Even the one officer on the return who
    indicated some awareness of the hobby was given short shrift in the text (some
    reference to him not being unmenacing).

    Moreover, I saw zero effort by the author, or most of his defenders, to do more
    than 'damn with faint praise' those same friends and their work. Yet, you
    complain about me being unfair.


    >Did you not think you would have an opportunity
    >to respond in The Citadel?

    Frankly, no. And, given the responses (bar one), I see no reason at all to
    think I was wrong.

    >If that is what you thought, then you have
    >prejudged without a basis in fact. Exactly the kind of treatment you
    >lament for your friends.

    The author made no prejudgment about my friends. And, I made no prejudgments
    about his article.

    He made judgments based on his perceptions of them from a moment's encounter
    each way at the border. My judgments were made based on his chosen words, and
    the lack of any other comment from any other figure within the publication.

    My only "prejudgment" was that I made my comments publicly before directing
    them specifically to the club officers noted in the newsletter. If there is
    any concern that I may have a fair complaint, the author, or publisher,
    certainly has as many future editions to comment in as they wish.


    >*NJH: IMHO - You have unfairly accused him of denigrating and
    >disrespecting a group of public servants. Again, I say that was not
    >the case.

    IMHO I disagree.

    I say his own words describe his sense of denigration and disrespect to a group
    of public servants. Have I misquoted his words (not counting typos)? No.

    Are his chosen words ones commonly used to express appreciation, respect, or
    other positive sentiments? No.

    Did he include any kind of ameliorating comment anywhere in or around the
    article to let the reader see his "tongue in cheek" intent? No.

    Did the rest of his article maintain a tone of whimsy or "tongue in cheekness"
    to suggest the entire thing should be read in such a light? No. In fact, the
    bulk of it was a factual recital of events and his impressions thereof.

    Following your own advice in your first reply, I looked for the point of the
    article. I presume the author to be honest in his writing. I presume him to
    choose his words deliberately, knowing they would be published. I presume him
    to be accurate in the rest of his article, the same as with those elements
    which distress me.


    >*NJH: This is hyperbole and rhetorical polemics. You're trying very
    >hard to elevate his relatively innocuous comments to some monumentally
    >egregious moral transgression to validate your concerns, comments, and
    >actions.

    No.

    I take the author seriously. I take his own words seriously. I presume that
    he used them with deliberation and understanding of their meaning. I have not
    added any words to his. I have not assumed he misused them.

    Do you claim that I did misquote him? Again, not counting typos.

    >*NJH: Not in the article, but why didn't you contact him directly and
    >ask him?

    Because I saw his choice of words. They suggested to me an attack on the
    officers. This is so because guns to not display themselves. People "display"
    them, or more accurately in the case of officers, carry them.

    >*NJH: This is a non sequitur,

    No, this is my opinion of his word choice. I have noted why.

    >I see no such connection and I'm a
    >seriously firm defender of the Second Amendment (I like former
    >President Heston).

    Good for you, glad to hear it even. However, your views are not at issue.
    Rather, the words of the article are.

    >When people post or publish incorrect information about
    >NHMGS, or it's my job to say it's incorrect.

    As far as I know, I have not published any incorrect information about the
    group. I quoted specific material from a publicly available source and
    attributed it appropriately. I then opined about it. I then was attacked by
    and several others for the same.

    >When people fail to give
    >NHMGS a chance to process complaints, it's my job to say you didn't
    >give us a chance.

    Well, I sent the same commentary to you right after posting it. Admittedly,
    the newsgroup is faster than the printer. However, you are not precluded from
    addressing my concerns. Indeed, you have been doing so all weekend, merely in
    a comparatively transparent setting.

    >*NJH: Please note I only condemn the incorrect assessment,

    We will just have to disagree about how incorrect my assessment is then. I
    read the words themselves. They were presumably chosen deliberately and with
    the same care given the rest of the article.

    >the choice
    >of venue for venting,
    >and the fact you did not give the NHMGS
    >officials time to address your concerns before you went "public."

    Fine. Were I in your seat I might well do the same. However, I would not try
    to pretend that I have no ability to respond elsewhere either.

    I will only say that I was very angry when I saw those comments. In
    retrospect, sending my note to the club officers first might have been more
    politic. But, given your replies, I am not at all sure I was so wrong.

    > cut us some slack
    >here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.

    Did you read my other replies? The bulk of the newsletter is quite good. Even
    the main elements of the article in question are fine.

    However, that those comments were in the publication, despite otherwise
    excellent work, suggests all the more their intent. I appreciate that author
    opinions are just that. However, two (even one) small sentences in the one
    single article with such comments, is not an unreasonable burden.

    >specious allegations and baseless
    >assertions.

    Show me wherein I misquoted the text in question (I do think I made one
    spelling typo)? Until then, don't pretend I made it up, I did not. That you
    choose to interpret the words differently than do I, is also zero evidence of
    "specious allegations" or "baseless assertions."

    >I ride for the brand.

    What was that old toast? Something like: "To the United States be she right or
    wrong. Let us pray that she is always right!"

    I admire riding for the brand. However, the facts/truth is more important
    still.

    I expressed my opinion and the effect it has on me not getting back into the
    hobby while I am in the Pac. NW. I did not invent words for the author. Nor
    did I misapply their meaning (IMHO).

    >*NJH: You attacked our organization, NHMGS officers, our newsletter,
    >our editor, and a decent member of our organization in a public forum.
    >You left me with no alternative, but to respond in kind in a public
    >forum.

    Wrong again.

    You still have another forum, at your disposal as you see fit, or not.

    I did not attack the organization, except to note that I do not wish to expose
    myself to the company of people like the author. I was angry at the time of
    the first post, and missed an opportunity to add a paragraph to delineate more
    clearly my differences with him and the whole group, a failure on my part.
    However, your own replies, and most of the others show me that the author is
    not alone in his views, good to know.

    I did attack the publisher of the newsletter for allowing the comments without
    at least adding a direct disclaimer. Given how on focus the rest of the
    articles were, and even the bulk of the article in question, I see this as
    fair. None of the other articles commented on the personal aspects of passing
    parties.

    >I truly apologize to the RGMH community for
    >violating the ceasefire.

    The ceasefire, to which I presume you refer, is about politics. Not about
    wargaming groups, which is the point of this subthread.

    >Explain
    >to everyone here, how you could rationally and reasonably expect the
    >officer's of NHMGS to respond to your concerns (emails) before you
    >posted here, especially when you had already posted on RGMH before you
    >sent the emails to the officers???

    Since I know of your concerns about quoting things. Let me quote my note to
    the club officers. I fully appreciate that my concerns were posted here first,
    said so from the start.

    "Gentlemen,

    The following is a message I posted to the rec.games.miniatures.historical
    newsgroup. The message is a reply to an unrelated subject, hence the opening
    reference lines. However, my reply is based on article in your Winter 2004
    edition of "The Citadel."

    I left the hobby years ago but maintained an interest. Since then I discovered
    the above newsgroup and seriously considered getting back into the hobby.
    However, as noted below, I will not be doing that via your group's offices any
    time soon.

    I hope that you will consider my comments in future editions."

    >3. Claim you gave the officer's ample opportunity.

    Has the next edition of the newsletter yet been printed? Is the deadline more
    than 24 hours away? Do you still have ample time to reply in whatever manner
    you deem fit?

    You seem more outraged that I made my concerns known in an open forum than
    anything else.


    >The real test of an idea is in an open market place of
    >ideas.

    I quite agree, hence my posting here.

    >*NJH: I say again, no such intent existed.

    Maybe you are right. I still disagree based on the available text. As you
    note, other people have also said I was wrong, that is a possibility.

    However, as I noted before, none of you has actually addressed my concern very
    directly in these replies, with one major exception. The one exception is the
    only one who actually addressed my main point rather than just telling me I'm
    wrong, radioactive, etc.


    >Ideally, I wish you had sent the emails to the NHMGS officers and
    >given us a deadline for a response before venting on RGMH.

    In retrospect, so do I. But, like yourself, I was writing in the heat of the
    moment.

    If you knew some of the stories of my border comrades, you might understand my
    anger. I have enough of my own stories, but for them, the people come to them
    so they can't get away.

    I still think my interpretation of the author's words is accurate. But you are
    right, I should have gone to the publication first.

    Moreover, I should have made clear first, my distaste is not with the club at
    large for those views. Rather, it is with the person who stated those views,
    and those who defended them without ever addressing my concerns.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040510040858.04129.00001164@mb-m16.aol.com>...
    > > cut us some slack here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.
    >
    > Did you read my other replies? The bulk of the newsletter is quite good.
    > Even the main elements of the article in question are fine.
    >
    > However, that those comments were in the publication, despite otherwise
    > excellent work, suggests all the more their intent. I appreciate that author
    > opinions are just that. However, two (even one) small sentences in the one
    > single article with such comments, is not an unreasonable burden.
    *NJH: I have to correct myself here because I think I may have given
    readers and Mr Vanga the wrong perception. The Citadel does have a
    "Masthead" on the inside front cover. It's not nearly as elaborate as
    the magazines I cited in my original post. However, the Masthead does
    have a notice in Italics that reads as follows: "The views expressed
    in this publication are solely those of the authors."
    I did not mean to give the impression that the Citadel has no Masthead
    at all. It's just that the Citadel's is a "bare bones" Masthead. Once
    again I apologize for any misperception that may have occurred in this
    regard.
    Cheers
    NJH
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    [posted and mailed]

    Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
    of wisdom

    > I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
    > attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
    > "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
    > protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
    > my life as a person.

    Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
    your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American. None
    of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.

    I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
    You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
    found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.

    However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
    to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
    out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a chip
    on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
    Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E7D1381FAE4rsingers@IP-Hidden>...
    > [posted and mailed]
    >
    > Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
    > of wisdom
    >
    > > I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
    > > attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
    > > "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
    > > protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
    > > my life as a person.
    >
    > Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
    > your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American. None
    > of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.
    *NJH: An ad hominem attack is an attack directly on the person. At the
    very least referring to someone as "the puke" certainly qualifies. But
    as Mr Brooking and Mr Vanga have buried the hatchet, if we should
    continue this discussion about ad hominem attacks perhaps it would be
    wise to first define the term "ad hominem" in mutually acceptable
    terms, and then use some of the past T&B exchanges to search for more
    obvious examples.

    > I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
    > You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
    > found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.
    *NJH: NHMGS produces very few copies beyond the needs of the
    membership. I'd post the article, but NHMGS no longer holds the
    copyright to the article. If you send me your address off-line I'll
    see if I can find a back issue. Or, failing that, for educational
    purposes I can photocopy the article.

    > However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
    > to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
    > out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a chip
    > on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
    > Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.
    *NJH: If he has you dogging his trail and constantly taking shots at
    him, he's certainly entitled to be a bit jumpy. :-)
    Cheers
    NJH
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94E7D1381FAE4rsingers@IP-Hidden...
    > [posted and mailed]
    >
    > Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
    > of wisdom
    >
    > > I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
    > > attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
    > > "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
    > > protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
    > > my life as a person.
    >
    > Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
    > your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American.
    None
    > of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.
    >
    > I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
    > You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
    > found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.
    >
    > However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
    > to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
    > out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a
    chip
    > on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
    > Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.

    I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
    American
    Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your coming from
    from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped jahwheeler and said

    > I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
    > American Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your
    > coming from from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.

    That is indeed possible. Rereading it I'm unsure which side of the border
    he was refering to. However in another post he mentions both North and
    South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
    side, not Canada.

    However you sir are doubly disadvantaged. Not coming from a real country
    and being too stupid to work out what real country others come from.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94E8721F8C6E8rsingers@IP-Hidden...
    > Out from under a rock popped jahwheeler and said
    >
    > > I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
    > > American Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your
    > > coming from from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.
    >
    > That is indeed possible. Rereading it I'm unsure which side of the border
    > he was refering to. However in another post he mentions both North and
    > South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
    > side, not Canada.
    >
    > However you sir are doubly disadvantaged. Not coming from a real country
    > and being too stupid to work out what real country others come from.
    >

    You're from New Zealand, are you not? Even less of a country, as I noted
    above. You guys don't even have a real air force anymore (notice the semi
    on topic military reference :) ).
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    jahwheeler startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
    wisdom

    > You're from New Zealand, are you not? Even less of a country, as I
    > noted above. You guys don't even have a real air force anymore (notice
    > the semi on topic military reference :) ).

    The idea that NZ is less of a country than Canada is farcical. For
    example there are millions of Americans who want to holiday in NZ
    whereas you have trouble getting more than three ardent (some would say
    fanatical) gamers to a con. And what ever way you want to look at it,
    if I were to ring you I’d be dialling 01. You only have to look in a
    phone book to see that every real country in the world has it’s own
    code.

    Anyway we only have to google this NG for confirmation from other NGers
    that Canada isn't a real country.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E8D0C4E369Arsingers@IP-Hidden>...

    >
    > Anyway we only have to google this NG for confirmation from other NGers
    > that Canada isn't a real country.

    BJ: Well, several of my US friends who travel extensively overseas are
    using a Canadian(or in one case,an Irish) passport in certain
    circumstances. Right now, a US Passport can be "Really" dangerous.

    It appears that Canadian passports are available under certain
    conditions-though two of my friends are naturalized US citizens that
    kept their Canadian citizenship(dual citizenship is a handy thing).

    A note on the Irish passport, my friend, who has a very Irish last
    name, is an American born citizen, BUT, if you can prove Irish descent
    from the Emerald Isle it seems you are entitled to the passport. He
    uses it on many of his overseas trips at hotels,etc.

    Several international corporations are also encouraging and helping
    their US employees to be less conspicuous.

    Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
    fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
    in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
    socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

    The US Olympic Committee is offering training in being a less obvious
    US athlete in Athens. This will also require good sportsmanship on our
    part playing a greater role than in the past.

    I think Canada has just about got the "real" thing right.

    BJ
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >However in another post he mentions both North and
    >South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
    >side, not Canada.

    Hello,

    Just for clairification purposes. I am in the US. My reference to both
    Northern and Southern borders was from the US point of view (i.e. both Canadian
    and Mexican crossings in both directions).
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped SamVanga and said

    > Just for clairification purposes. I am in the US. My reference to
    > both Northern and Southern borders was from the US point of view (i.e.
    > both Canadian and Mexican crossings in both directions).

    Goodo. Still doesn't make Canada a real country tho' :-)

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Bob Jones and said

    > Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
    > fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
    > in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
    > socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

    Just a couple of notes. You forget to mention the badly cut shorts and the
    general mismatching of clothing styles and colours, as well as bad hair
    cuts.

    More importantly you may not be aware that to a large amount of the rest of
    the world "fanny" is specifically a Lady's front bottom, not a gender non
    specific back bottom. So the term "fanny pack" can cause great amusement.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E96B8BC2C0Ersingers@IP-Hidden>...
    > Out from under a rock popped Bob Jones and said
    >
    > > Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
    > > fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
    > > in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
    > > socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.
    >
    > Just a couple of notes. You forget to mention the badly cut shorts and the
    > general mismatching of clothing styles and colours, as well as bad hair
    > cuts.

    BJ: True. The men's hair cuts also denote class in the US. I had a
    friend that said he could accurately predict the socio-economic class
    of anyone in the US by just observing their haircuts-certainly the
    mullet, mohawk, white side walls, and strangely dyed odd cuts are
    seldom seen in some circles and quite common in others. Conversely
    the Northeastern, and Ivy League's, carefully arranged, casually
    combed, slightly shaggy coif is seen a lot in young(and old) monied
    circles; The perfectly trimmed do's of Evangelicals and Mormons is
    easily spotted, as is the West coast "Player" slick back. Ethnic
    corn-rows, dreadlocks, and bowl cuts are also pretty group specific.

    Europeans tend to the Northeastern look except in England, who tend to
    share our predeliction for strange tonsorial styles.

    BJ
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
    >fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
    >in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
    >socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

    I always laugh about the loudness thing. Compared to the French, Singaporese,
    some British (minority, but real), most Americans I've met overseas are very
    quiet and far less pushy. In fact, compared to many of the French and
    Singaporese vastly quieter and less pushy.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped SamVanga and said

    > I always laugh about the loudness thing. Compared to the French,
    > Singaporese, some British (minority, but real), most Americans I've
    > met overseas are very quiet and far less pushy. In fact, compared to
    > many of the French and Singaporese vastly quieter and less pushy.

    I surpose it's partly a combination thing. You can always tell when a
    cruise boat of Americans are in town. The loud voices and clothes give
    them a way instantly.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109sh6l5v0rpr65@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
    >
    > > > Dear Mr. Jones,
    > > >
    > > > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am
    > very
    > > > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
    > > > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
    > > >
    > > > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it
    > constitutes a
    > > > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the
    > dawn,
    > > > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try
    > to
    > > > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree
    > of
    > > > success in your other endeavors.
    > > >
    > > > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
    > > >
    > > > Ty
    > >
    > > Ty,
    > >
    > > You know you're itching.... Been a while.
    >
    > Dear Mr. Parks,
    >
    > You overestimate me.

    Never....

    > Besides, I get paid to argue (I'm a lawyer).

    I'll try not to hold that against you.

    > If done in
    > small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice. But if
    > done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
    > clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
    > flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.

    If what I've seen before is practice, whew.

    > Now while I believe that arguing about an issue can be beneficial because it
    > can help clarify my thinking and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of
    > each side, I find that there are severe limitations. In a usenet forum,
    > cowardly opponents can simply ignore your counterpoints, refuse to answer
    > legitimate questions, attempt to shift the debate to irrelevant issues, etc.
    > Other folks can jump into the middle of a debate and distract the issues.
    > The lack of nonverbal cues -- and sloppy typing -- can unintentionally
    > offend the other side or simply obfuscate the piont you're trying to make.
    > The sloppy way that folks (including me) throw around defined terms --
    > without defining them in the current discussion -- add to the confusion.
    > (Consider a simple example -- a debate on whether a certain military action
    > was "moral". How can we discuss that meaningfully without agreeing on what
    > the definition of "morality" is?) There's also the problem that a great many
    > political debates (which seem to predominate our OT flamewars) turn on
    > factual matters which are in dispute. This forum is simply not capable of
    > resolving the factual issues.

    The exercise of airing out positions is not ment to resolve any
    issues. If we could do that, my God, the mini's we could buy. We'd be
    uber-rich. The well-founded arguements of ONE or both sides, enriches
    all. Most importantly, it enlightens AND entertains me. The most
    highest of endeavors. You do not need practice, but appreciation. As
    do all, actually. It has been an informative trip that has
    characterized this board now and for some time. I simply miss the
    posts. You ain't practicin', but luvin'. Others are too....

    > So, such discussions quickly become bogged down in an intellectual version
    > of the Western Front in WWI.
    >
    > And even if you have a reasonable disputant on the other side of the issue,
    > the fact remains that these kind of off-topic flamewars pretty quickly
    > exhaust their benefit stream. Most folks are simply not willing to change
    > their cherished beliefs no matter how much contra evidence is produced. This
    > is a fact that I am only recently becoming aware of -- my gaming buddies
    > have poked fun at me for decades because of my absurd and naive belief that
    > anyone will see the light if things are simply explained clearly enough to
    > them.

    Argue them into a circle... You've just talked yourself into one ;). I
    only care for my benefit stream here. Since it doesn't get me a woman
    in a compromised position, wweell...... Your point of view is still
    cherished...

    > So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq, the
    > presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
    > invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see any
    > likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.

    There is too many good subjects here, to abandon the effort. But, the
    stress (and I honestly believe in a world wide stress over this
    issue), slaps us all down. That's why some come here. Honest info and
    opinion cleared here amongst friends, mean much. I've seen too much
    effort from YOU, not to be entertained and well educated by your
    posts.

    > But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT flamewar,
    > I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.

    Flamewar?! Nawh.. Just a passion filled jamboree....

    > Your humble and obsequious servant,

    Oh, just friends will do. How are FFT's part 3 doing?

    See Ya, Mark
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1f7af36a.0405170003.25ccb442@posting.google.com...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<109sh6l5v0rpr65@corp.supernews.com>...

    > > If done in
    > > small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice.
    But if
    > > done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
    > > clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
    > > flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.
    >
    > If what I've seen before is practice, whew.


    Yeah, tell me about it...

    ....

    > > So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq,
    the
    > > presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
    > > invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see
    any
    > > likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.
    >
    > There is too many good subjects here, to abandon the effort. But, the
    > stress (and I honestly believe in a world wide stress over this
    > issue), slaps us all down. That's why some come here. Honest info and
    > opinion cleared here amongst friends, mean much. I've seen too much
    > effort from YOU, not to be entertained and well educated by your
    > posts.
    >
    > > But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT
    flamewar,
    > > I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.
    >
    > Flamewar?! Nawh.. Just a passion filled jamboree....
    >
    > > Your humble and obsequious servant,
    >
    > Oh, just friends will do. How are FFT's part 3 doing?

    Slowly. We have all the systems defined and playtested, but re-rating 500 or
    so vehicles is proving to be a bit of a chore.

    --Ty
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    parx@earthlink.net (M. J. Parks) wrote in message news:<1f7af36a.0405082318.663e76b5@posting.google.com>...
    > highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones) wrote in message news:<73e9b810.0405061531.4f02c59d@posting.google.com>...
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
    > >
    > > Over to you, Ty.
    >
    > Where's he been?

    BJ: Since he is a tax specialist, I would suspect that April and parts
    of May would be a heavy period for him and a good part of his income.
    He'll soon have more time on his hands.
    >
    > > BJ
    > >
    > > PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?
    >
    > The white uniforms ruined everthing....

    BJ: Actually, I thought the white uniform was in 1809 due to dye
    shortages brought on by the Continental System.
    >
    > > Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
    > > inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
    > > need a new Mercedes? All of the above?
    >
    > You know, years ago, (if it's the same people), Russ's wife fished me
    > out of a Historicon (95', 96'?) dealers area crowd and gave me $120.00
    > of free ACW lead after pruchasing $800.00 worth the day before. I hope
    > Russ got a new Mercedes. Be nice to ride in it...

    BJ: Russ is a good marketer-a 15% discount is often used to reward
    good customers. Of course, this is entirely unrelated to why the
    price increases have occured, which given the weakness of the dollar,
    the crimp in tin stockpiles, and inflationary pressures in the
    economy, may be quite warranted. However, I'd love to know the actual
    economics of the increase-which all manufacturers will applaud, but
    their remarks must always be viewed in light of their obvious
    self-interest.

    >
    > > Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
    > > sound effects for wargames?
    >
    > Belches and farts weren't enough?

    BJ: I just thought that it could be a nice touch to take a basic step
    in using a technology that model railroading is using to good effect.
    Sounds such as church bells, cows mooing, auto traffic, station
    announcements, road work machinery, etc. is adding a nice realistic
    touch to the MR scene.

    I could see "talking" wargame scenery units with sound chips hidden in
    buildings, woods, artillery caissons(finally a use for these expensive
    items), or in hills. The sounds of artillery firing, musketry fire,
    drums playing the pas de charge, or bands playing the Marseilles, men
    shouting, horses whinnying, etc. could be injected into the wargame
    play either by random cycling, or a simple button, or remote radio
    control.

    The audio could be digitally recorded at reenactments, or taken from
    movie soundtracks.

    BJ
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games Product